linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next 0/2] Add i2c arbitration support for new SoCs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YySbfN2b6UDf9/Bp@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Sep 2022 16:59:30 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jan Dabros <jsd@...ihalf.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com, wsa@...nel.org,
        rrangel@...omium.org, upstream@...ihalf.com,
        mario.limonciello@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 0/2] Add i2c arbitration support for new SoCs

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 03:18:52PM +0200, Jan Dabros wrote:
> This patchset comprises changes into i2c-designware-amdpsp.c module
> which aims to add support for new SoCs, while keep backward
> compatibility with Cezanne platforms.
> 
> Beside new algorithm introduced for the PSP-x86 communication, it also
> switches from MSR/MMIO access to SMN (System Management Network) since
> only the latter is working on both old new revisions of SoCs.

Which one is better performance/energy/etc wise? If it's not the SMN,
can we keep better in place?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko